The Anglican Covenant - a view from NZ

Bishop Brian Carrell of Nelson, New Zealand, has posted a talk giving a considered overview of history and prospects for the dissolution of the Anglican Communion. (Here.)

I share his list of centrifugal factors with which the Anglican Communion must cope, though these pull in different directions.

For example, the need to address diversity in a post-modern world suggest the possibility of a range of differing answers - a loosening of the bonds of Anglicanism without finally untying them. Conversely the resurgence of conservative Christianity across all parts of the Church which tends to look toward answers in the narrowing the bonds of unity and greater degrees of centralisation and control. I share his statements that the authority and understanding of the Bible is a core issue, whilst sexuality has been the occasion (rather than the cause) our our present disputes; and also that the centre of gravity in Anglicanism has moved from London and Washington to Africa which would require an organizational response whatever the occasion of our differences.

But his discussion of the Anglican Instruments of Unity is a little sparse. To quote Michael Nazir-Ali as asserting that "Lambeth has a moral authority which is different to legal authority but not less; it’s the authority of the common mind of Christ manifested in his Church." does not make it so. Previous Lambeth Conferences have explicitly eschewed such a level of authority and it's hard to see what this statement means in constitutional terms. If Provinces are autonomous (i.e. self-governing) then they are not subordinate to the Lambeth Conference however carefully they may listen to its pronouncements.

Michael Nazir-Ali's statement also equates the mind of the church with the resolutions of its bishops. But perhaps the ACC (with its formal constitution and lay participation), has a better claim to express the mind of the church. Whoever has the better claim, however, the idea of 'the mind of the church' entails a deliberate choice not to hear minority voices from any quarter, and to not take seriously the evident diversity of the church. Why should disputes have only one outcome?

Bishop Carrell rightly points to the antecedents of the Primates' assumption of greater power. However he misses the Primates' decision that we already have a fifth Instrument of Unity - Canon Law, as agreed in Canterbury, 2002. But - although a network of legal advisers was agreed - this has largely sunk without trace as an element of restructuring the Communion, overtaken by subsequent events. It would be no more than a footnote in any talk on this issue except for one thing: the fact that the proposal could rise and fall so quickly shows the flexibility inherent in decision making: just because a meeting comes to a decision it doesn't make it so. There also has to be a process of reception.

Lambeth 1998 certainly expressed its mind in Resolution I:10 on human sexuality. The Bishop doesn't explain that this involved the rejection of the results of the international study group which had been preparing a paper for the conference - and this may very largely explain the surprise (in NZ as elsewhere) at the eventual outcome.

Bishop Gene Robinson's election and consecration as Bishop of New Hampshire certainly brought the pot to the boil. However, first, enough people were looking for a fight - if Gene Robinson hadn't been the cause célèbre someone else would have been. Second, to say

Gene Robinson had been a married man, but before his election had parted from his wife to form a public partnership with another man in a same-sex union.

is to telescope events of his personal history in a way which at best is seriously misleading.

The Windsor Report was clearly a significant pivot in the progress of the dispute (and I note the Bishop does not also cite the Windsor Report's opposition to the intrusion of one bishop into the jurisdiction of another) but it was not a statement of the mind of the church. Again, its recommendations did not make it so - notwithstanding the semi-juridical and now ecclesiological weight the Report has subsequently been accorded.

And so to the Covenant. (This talk was evidently given before the Episcopal Church made their response public - my summary.) The Covenant was part of the Windsor Report. But the suggested draft with the Report, once again, has sunk without trace. Again, in a talk, this would be no more than a footnote. Except that what it shows is that the issue is not 'Covenant or no Communion' but: 'what are the terms of our association with one another which are to be expressed in this document?' Writing a Covenant will not create harmony - and the Covenant as drafted was evidently designed to give power to the Primates to exclude The Episcopal Church - but if there is sufficient agreement between the parties of a voluntary communion then these can be written down for all to follow.

The response of TEC's House of Bishops to the Primates' Communiqué from Tanzania, and its broad welcome by the Joint Standing Committee of the Primates' meeting, provoked considerable disappointment from more conservative bishops. But they don't constitute "the rest of the Communion", they are pursuing their partisan commitment like the rest of us. (And the Global South isn't a monochrome entity with a single voice - there are as many differences in Africa and Asia as anywhere else on the globe.)

And, after all this, my major criticism of Bishop Carrell's account is its one sidedness. He hears the voice of the conservatives much louder than he hears the voice of others. But their answers are not the only ones, nor do they have a monopoly on faith or wisdom.

The causes of disintegration are also the sources of reconstruction, and multiple answers are possible. My sympathies are unashamedly with TEC - but I don't suppose that whatever happens will simply echo what I (or any other individual) would ideally like to see. The church is formed by the actions and decisions of all its members.

The mind of the church can only be determined by historians, if there could ever be such a thing in the singular. In the meantime all is politics: while we continue to struggle together we stay together - it is when we walk away and stop talking that division ensues (and, as Bishop Carrell notes, in the US at least the only thing holding the dissentients together is their dislike of the Episcopal Church - they walk away in different directions).

And of course the next Lambeth Conference will go ahead. Who would want to miss the opportunity of a truly global shebang in the midst of such uncertainty? To miss this party is to have no say in the shape of the church to come.

Plan B: an alternative to The Draft Anglican Covenant

Six months ago it seemed that the Windsor process, and the covenant in particular, were the only serious games in town for rebuilding of Anglican Communion. Partly because there were no alternatives the stakes were very high: risk a covenant or risk no communion. Where would you place your bets?

In the last few months a number of things have become clearer: the covenant is no longer seen as the way forwards; some in the TEC are making serious provision for schism; some African Provinces (and the Southern Cone) are actively establishing structures within the territory of the TEC in schismatic actions; and yet the Anglican Communion is not necessarily tearing down the middle. Instead of the ejection of TEC (and possibly the Anglican Church in Canada) from the Anglican Communion it seems that some of their accusers are walking away. It is still unclear where the paths pursued by Archbishop Akinola and Archbishop Jensen will lead but, in my estimation, as the reality of schism comes close so some of the fire for schism has burnt out.

In effect the schismatic actions of some have created the beginning of an alternative to the Windsor process.

The covenant stood on the conviction that unity and order are to be found in greater uniformity of doctrine and practice, and thus in less tolerance of difference. Uniformity is an ideal which is visibly not reality. The desire for uniformity has been a strong current setting the direction of discussions – and the attempt to achieve it has driven people further apart.

Turning this ideal around might offer the possibility of an alternative vision of the future. Perhaps Anglicanism could develop in new and surprising ways, and still stay together, valuing both its shared history and its present diversity.

The Anglican Communion is currently held together by bonds of affection, of history, and by a range of written agreements. If each of these strands were disentangled and each formally recognised as entailing different levels of mutual accountability – and therefore differing degrees of distance from one another – there would be much greater room for co-operation.

Bonds of affection, with an inherent presumption of mutual hospitality, could sustain cordial relations between groups which did not, for example, recognize the full range of each other’s orders (of women as priests or bishops, for example). Bonds of affection would continue to reach across cultural and doctrinal differences at the level of personal friendship, mutual aid between parishes and dioceses, and support though missionary and other organizations.

Bonds of history might focus as much on distinctive developments as on commonality of origin such that scholars, liturgiologists, and canon lawyers, for example, could keep talking to one another even where the divides between their respective churches seemed wide and deep.

Bonds of history and friendship need not entail or imply any test or endorsement of other members’ doctrine or practice. They could sustain relationships of hospitality, exchange and mutual learning, and avoid the temptation to insist that anyone take sides on divisive and contentious issues.

Bonds of agreement, on the other hand, could fully or partially recognize the unity and uniformity of doctrine and practice between autonomous churches. Agreements could be global, regional, or bi-lateral; they might concern liturgy or orders, or the exchange of clergy and training; they could be brief statements of unity or detailed specifications of shared canon law. What is key is that they do not have to be uniform: multiple layers of agreement can bind together as effectively as one single covenant while allowing for much greater diversity of practice. In effect this has been the pattern the Anglican Communion has followed since the uneven process of recognition of the Church of South India and the differing practices on the ordination of women.

New groupings could not be restricted to provinces. Already groups based on common interests and shared convictions such as African churches in the USA and British Provincial Episcopal Visitors cut across provinces and dioceses, some formally accepted and others seen as intrusions. New affinity groups would develop. The outcome would be an uneven, lumpy, energetic Communion. The points of conflict would be sharpest wherever new groups seek to cut across existing jurisdictions and formal agreements.

All of this would entail a new Anglican ecclesiology. A diocese would no longer be a geographic entity which would require re-thinking the nature of the episcopacy. Conversely the voluntary nature of church adherence would be embodied in a much more varied church.

The Instruments of Unity would have to change as a consequence. Bonds of history would keep the Archbishop of Canterbury as the focal point of communion. The Lambeth Conference would no longer meet (already the Global South are considering an alternative meeting of bishops in 2008). The Primates’ Meeting would be re-cast in scope and membership.

The Anglican Consultative Council would become pivotal to holding the Communion together. It would monitor and share formal agreements and weave together the fraying threads of the Communion. It would be broker, facilitator, and communicator. Its work would rest on bonds of history and affection, always conscious of the voluntary nature of participation.

Like real life this is complex, untidy and, I think, hopeful. It makes a virtue of necessity, finding treasures in the mess. The Anglican Communion is no longer dependent on the Church of England nor on the Archbishop of Canterbury but, as a family of adults each of whom lives their independent life, there is much that has been shared that no-one wants to throw away and much that we value in one another, even if we meet less often and don’t see eye to eye in the way we used.

At the very least the presence of an alternative to the covenant might help lower tension at the table and change the question from ‘covenant or communion?’ to ‘what sorts of communion?’

Anglican Ecclesiology, and mine

I suspect I'm fast heading away from the dominant note in tomorrow's Anglican ecclesiology.

I think this note is: the higher up the hierarchy the closer to divine authority.

On the contrary, I believe in the people of God - the ordinary people in the pew, the not sure and the over-definite, the tired and enthusiastic, and especially in the patient, quiet seeker after God. In the people I know and the millions I don't.

What we believe matters vitally. But the credal what of what we believe is only part of faith. Faith is living as though we believe the creed - the unqualified throwing of ourselves into living in the truth of the Christian faith. Our relationship with God is in its making, in its realising, not in disembodied statements. Our discipleship lies in living out credal faith as though it were true; and in doing so we realise its truth.

Which means such faith is always (this side of death) provisional: it is constrained by our limited vision, our limited capacity to act as though God were God and all creation were God's, our frail faith. It is limited too by logic: no human act (or statement) can ever be complete - it's meaning is only knowable in retrospect and can only be known in the web of all knowledge (speech) and always retains ambiguity, its causes and consequences can only be partially assessed.

This is a picture of Christian life in which the given data of faith (Creeds, traditions, patterns of worship, customs of prayer, moral standards) meet the transitory, wobbly, ambiguous mess of daily life of ordinary believers. It is in this process that the Christian faith is given life and, like all life, inevitably grows and changes.

And I think that apprehension of God is not focused in the few but is distributed amongst the many, and therefore so too is authority in faith. I entirely accept the need for a structure of ministers (and I think what they do and how they do it is more important than names and labels) and I would argue that they, and academics of all relevant flavours, should have weight in the continuous discernment of what is appropriate in Christian living. Ultimately, however, judgement should - I think - rest with the whole Church, not with slices of it. We need to re-vitalise (or re-invent) the doctrine and practice of reception.

Therefore I wish to assert an ecclesiology grounded in God's faithful people, not in Primates, Instruments of Unity, Bishops or Covenants. Authority is distributed, and so too is wisdom, discernment, knowledge, and faith. I wish to assert an ecclesiology of pluralism, of the recognition of internal conflict as normal, of complexity, uncertainty and provisionality, and of ordinary living faith in an intimate as transcendent God.

Which scarcely fits the desire of parts of the Anglican Communion to simplify, to demand immediate conformity to certain ways of doing things, to agree common global standards of behaviour, to set out a contract by which we can all be Anglicans (as if we weren't already).

And anyway, a hierarchy which leaves its followers behind is somewhat risible.